Yes, you just asked how the AMISH are keeping society from becoming more advanced. I'm sure their lifestyle has nothing but positive effects for people in their community, no one ever wants to leave, etcetera.

I never said that their lifestyle was nothing but positive, I said that contrary to your claim, them being religious doesn't inhibit society from becoming more advance.

I'm not about religion dying because it personally inconveniences me. I'm not that selfish. I'm saying it's hurtful to more than just me, and if you think that's nonsense, you haven't paid attention or done any research at ALL, and pulling out the Amish and saying, "How do THEY hold back society?" should never have been an option here.

You're speaking in general terms, I'm asking you specifically what have they done to inhibit society from advancing. What have they done specifically to harm you or I?

As for you comment about me bringing up the Amish, I only do so because you proceed to declare that all religion poses a harm to people and that it stops the advancement of society. In doing so, you include groups like the Amish and the Greek monks of Mt. Athos.

I'm not talking about the religious. I'm saying "religions" hold back society. Asking me about groups of religious people is pretty much irrelevant, although if you really wanted to go there, I would say that the Amish are a part of society and the inevitable decline of living conditions and the resulting death of being a part of it is NEGATIVE and it holds back society as a whole. Not YOUR society. Not MY society. Not you. Not me. Society.

Right...how exactly is being able to listen to people's veiwpoints and inform them on your own without outright insulting them ignorance. Sounds more like the mark of an enlightened person to me.

Well considering all you did was pretty much say "This makes you look like a fanatic!" instead of actually addressing what was said and not even demonstrating much of a parallel, the last thing I'd do was call you enlightened. I didn't see much evidence of you listening to Bash's view point, and you informing him of your own wasn't very educational. It seemed on the level of him informing you that he found it ignorant as far as being informative went.

The parallel here is pretty simple.

When it comes to rational religious people, their view of other religions is live and let live. Bluff actively wants their idiologies to die out. I'd say his line of thought is far more dangerous than any of the people he claims to be endangering society or holding us back.

Letting a hurtful ideology live because it's tradition, because people believe it, or another reason along that same vein is fanatical. Saying, "Maybe this sexism/racism/homophobia/dogmatic/whatever stuff should die. Maaaybe it's holding us back" is the opposite of fanaticism, define by my laziness (wikipedia) as;

Fanaticism is a belief or behavior involving uncritical zeal, particularly for an extreme religious or political cause or in some cases sports, or with an obsessive enthusiasm for a pastime or hobby.

Uncritical. My zeal is not uncritical. I didn't just say, "I don't like this, therefore it must go!" I looked at the evidence, with what was happening, what is happening, and what is likely to happen in the future, and one day I realized, "We would be better off without this."

And we would.

Your belief is uncritical. Your zeal is not based on much of anything other than, "People should have the right to think whatever batshit crazy thing that they'd like, and if you don't think that all of it SHOULD exist, you're equally as crazy," from where I'm standing. Correct me if I'm wrong. I believe in the right to say or think whatever it is you want, stupid or not. I don't believe that it should be treated with reverence or respect. You do not have that right, and in the open marketplace of ideas, where we try and compare things to other things, or examine them to see what they do and why, especially not!

I'm not talking about the religious. I'm saying "religions" hold back society. Asking me about groups of religious people is pretty much irrelevant, although if you really wanted to go there, I would say that the Amish are a part of society and the inevitable decline of living conditions and the resulting death of being a part of it is NEGATIVE and it holds back society as a whole. Not YOUR society. Not MY society. Not you. Not me. Society.

You keep talking in general terms while avoiding specifics. HOW does a person living in the country side with no electricity and lives off the land, have a negative impact on whether or not stem cell research is developed/abortion is made legal/ect. ? These people keep to themselves, and the only interaction I know that they have with us is that they sell furniture.

I'm not talking about the religious. I'm saying "religions" hold back society. Asking me about groups of religious people is pretty much irrelevant, although if you really wanted to go there, I would say that the Amish are a part of society and the inevitable decline of living conditions and the resulting death of being a part of it is NEGATIVE and it holds back society as a whole. Not YOUR society. Not MY society. Not you. Not me. Society.

You keep talking in general terms while avoiding specifics. HOW does a person living in the country side with no electricity and lives off the land, have a negative impact on whether or not stem cell research is developed/abortion is made legal/ect. ? These people keep to themselves, and the only interaction I know that they have with us is that they sell furniture.

You seem to keep missing my point. Let me paste it again for you since you seem so keen on ignoring it.

"I would say that the Amish are a part of society and the inevitable decline of living conditions and the resulting death of being a part of it is NEGATIVE and it holds back society as a whole. Not YOUR society. Not MY society. Not you. Not me. Society."

For example, Fundamentalist Islam. It does not hurt me in America 99.9% of the time. Does it still hurt society as a whole? YES. Go over to some country that is ruled by it and you'll see what I mean. I am including the Amish as a part of society. Because they are.

I'm not talking about the religious. I'm saying "religions" hold back society. Asking me about groups of religious people is pretty much irrelevant, although if you really wanted to go there, I would say that the Amish are a part of society and the inevitable decline of living conditions and the resulting death of being a part of it is NEGATIVE and it holds back society as a whole. Not YOUR society. Not MY society. Not you. Not me. Society.

You keep talking in general terms while avoiding specifics. HOW does a person living in the country side with no electricity and lives off the land, have a negative impact on whether or not stem cell research is developed/abortion is made legal/ect. ? These people keep to themselves, and the only interaction I know that they have with us is that they sell furniture.

You seem to keep missing my point. Let me paste it again for you since you seem so keen on ignoring it.

"I would say that the Amish are a part of society and the inevitable decline of living conditions and the resulting death of being a part of it is NEGATIVE and it holds back society as a whole. Not YOUR society. Not MY society. Not you. Not me. Society."

For example, Fundamentalist Islam. It does not hurt me in America 99.9% of the time. Does it still hurt society as a whole? YES. Go over to some country that is ruled by it and you'll see what I mean. I am including the Amish as a part of society. Because they are.

Except your example doesn't hold up, because fundamentalist Islam is trying to force people to convert and live like them while the Amish keep to themselves. The only interaction I have seen between the Amish and us is that they try to get us to buy their "handmade" Amish furniture.

As for you quote, how are the Amish holding us back anymore than a redneck farmer who likes to keep to himself and not watch tv? I agree with you in regards to creationist or people who bomb abortion clinics, but I think its important to distinguish between people like Timothy McVeigh and some Amish guy who decides to hold up traffic by ridding his buggy on the road.

Ryotknife:All in all though, just be careful. Insulting someone's religion directly is like insulting their family. Know your audience and where the line is.

Slightly tangential, but I've never understood why people get so offended when other people insult their families. So what if I call your sister easy, or your father stupid? I'm not insulting you, just some other random people you happen to be close to. I mean, sure, offer up logical defenses if your sister is actually a prude or your father is in Mensa, but getting offended? I don't get it. It actually makes more sense to be offended if I insult your religion - that's something you've chosen, rather than something (someone) you got landed with.

-----

Somewhat more on topic, I voted for "Not really, it is just another viewpoint open to discussion, respect should only factor in to the same extent as one would give an opposing political view.". Because, well, I was gonna say more but that poll option pretty much says it all. Nothing special about religious (or political, or ethical) views. All of them are open to discussion.

Helmholtz Watson: You keep talking in general terms while avoiding specifics. HOW does a person living in the country side with no electricity and lives off the land, have a negative impact on whether or not stem cell research is developed/abortion is made legal/ect. ? These people keep to themselves, and the only interaction I know that they have with us is that they sell furniture.

You seem to keep missing my point. Let me paste it again for you since you seem so keen on ignoring it.

"I would say that the Amish are a part of society and the inevitable decline of living conditions and the resulting death of being a part of it is NEGATIVE and it holds back society as a whole. Not YOUR society. Not MY society. Not you. Not me. Society."

For example, Fundamentalist Islam. It does not hurt me in America 99.9% of the time. Does it still hurt society as a whole? YES. Go over to some country that is ruled by it and you'll see what I mean. I am including the Amish as a part of society. Because they are.

Except your example doesn't hold up, because fundamentalist Islam is trying to force people to convert and live like them while the Amish keep to themselves. The only interaction I have seen between the Amish and us is that they try to get us to buy their "handmade" Amish furniture.

As for you quote, how are the Amish holding us back anymore than a redneck farmer who likes to keep to himself and not watch tv? I agree with you in regards to creationist or people who bomb abortion clinics, but I think its important to distinguish between people like Timothy McVeigh and some Amish guy who decides to hold up traffic by ridding his buggy on the road.

You CONTINUE to miss my point. My point isn't that they spread out. My point isn't that they convert. My point is that among the Amish, because of Amish beliefs, they SUFFER. In Islamic countries, because of Islamic beliefs, people SUFFER. Society in social and technological progress, society in health, physical and mental. Society artistically. Society as far as freedom is concerned...

Bashfluff:When Hitchens said that the number one source of hatred in the world is religion, organized religion, I agree. It should be treated with ridicule and hatred whenever it's found. It needs to die if we are to move forward as a society.

LOL, Hitchens believed something he couldn't support with evidence. What a moron!

(Perhaps you see the problem with that position now?)

now I am pretty sure you said you were done on here, why have you returned? on the other hand yeah I see your point.

Ryotknife:All in all though, just be careful. Insulting someone's religion directly is like insulting their family. Know your audience and where the line is.

Slightly tangential, but I've never understood why people get so offended when other people insult their families. So what if I call your sister easy, or your father stupid? I'm not insulting you, just some other random people you happen to be close to. I mean, sure, offer up logical defenses if your sister is actually a prude or your father is in Mensa, but getting offended? I don't get it. It actually makes more sense to be offended if I insult your religion - that's something you've chosen, rather than something (someone) you got landed with.

-----

Somewhat more on topic, I voted for "Not really, it is just another viewpoint open to discussion, respect should only factor in to the same extent as one would give an opposing political view.". Because, well, I was gonna say more but that poll option pretty much says it all. Nothing special about religious (or political, or ethical) views. All of them are open to discussion.

Honestly i cant explain why that is. I usually dont care if i get insulted (in RL at least, on the internet i dont feel the need to hold back for whatever reason), but it gets under my skin when the people i care about are insulted. It also gets under my skin when people insult others (who are strangers to me), but it doesnt bother me as much when they insult me.

I would also say that love flies in the face of logic as well. I dont mean that in a soapy kinda way, just from a neutral observation kind of way.

You CONTINUE to miss my point. My point isn't that they spread out. My point isn't that they convert. My point is that among the Amish, because of Amish beliefs, they SUFFER.

HOW does a person suffer because they don't eat geneticaly "enhanced" food and choose to not have a sedentary lifestyle? That seems healthy to me, but please proof me wrong. Do you have any proof that leading a Amish lifestyle is more unhealthy for you than eating fast food all the time and watching tv all day?

Bashfluff:In Islamic countries, because of Islamic beliefs, people SUFFER. Society in social and technological progress, society in health, physical and mental. Society artistically. Society as far as freedom is concerned...

Now your just generalizing, Afghanistan and Turkey are both Islamic countries, but lifestyles that the people of the two countries live are not at all the same.

You CONTINUE to miss my point. My point isn't that they spread out. My point isn't that they convert. My point is that among the Amish, because of Amish beliefs, they SUFFER.

HOW does a person suffer because they don't eat geneticaly "enhanced" food and choose to not have a sedentary lifestyle? That seems healthy to me, but please proof me wrong. Do you have any proof that leading a Amish lifestyle is more unhealthy for you than eating fast food all the time and watching tv all day?

Bashfluff:In Islamic countries, because of Islamic beliefs, people SUFFER. Society in social and technological progress, society in health, physical and mental. Society artistically. Society as far as freedom is concerned...

Now your just generalizing, Afghanistan and Turkey are both Islamic countries, but lifestyles that the people of the two countries live are not at all the same.

Again, you cherrypick of the good parts of Amish society and the bad parts of modern living. You ignore the whole and ask me to disprove the positives of Amish living and the negatives of modern living. It is a fundamentally dishonest way to debate, and if you want to continue, stop.

I am not generalizing. Do people in those countries suffer because of the prominence of Islamic beliefs? YES.

As for me, I am making this thread as, at least partially, a reuslt from arguing with religious people. It seems to me that whenever I either make a joke about religion such as in the second post of this thread: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.398228-Stupid-things-you-believed-as-a-kid, or when I outright dispute a factual claim they are making, such as the Jews being slaves in Egypt, I recieve undue amounts of protest, saying that I am insulting people by making these jokes and disputing these facts. This is absolutely ridiculous. What I am insulting is the belief, not the people, if they choose to take offense and see themselves as the embodiment of their religion, that is their burden, not mine.

If ONE DUDE getting upset with you is "undue amounts of protest", I suggest a debate forum on the internet is perhaps not a profitable use of your time.

Otherwise, it's just like anything else that you know is shit-stirring-- some people will mind and not say anything, some people won't mind, and some people will think you're being a jerk and will tell you so. If you can live with that, say whatever you please. (And yes, sometimes shit needs to be stirred, but it's almost never going to make you popular. Live with that or have another reason for doing it, or don't do it.)

Xan Krieger:Stores do not have to be closed on Sunday, that is up to the owner, not a law.

Unless you're in some states and you sell alcohol, in which case yes, you do, and yes, it is.

Everything good and bad about religion will exist without religion. All hope, art, charity, war, peace, famine will continue to exist because all of those things are projected onto religion in the first place since it was the creation of human beings. With that out of the way, the only thing special about religion is Belief and unprovable claims. Belief in an unprovable claim without the benefit that people normally attribute to religion is irrational. Since they should be able to find the same benefits of religion without believing in irrational claims, Religion should not exist and being religious is in fact pointless.

The pursuit of god, in a case where it is no longer assumed to have existed, then mostly becomes a scientific one, like the pursuit of the Higgs-Boson. Then, if we are able to find a god through scientific means we should by that point be able to shift our focus and technology towards the new means of gaining enough power to destroy it and take it's place as the rulers of the universe!

That, my friends, is why religion deserves to die. So Humanity can become technologically advanced enough to find then eventually hunt and destroy gods like wild animals. Pretty rad. Long live the God Emperor.

As for me, I am making this thread as, at least partially, a reuslt from arguing with religious people. It seems to me that whenever I either make a joke about religion such as in the second post of this thread: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.398228-Stupid-things-you-believed-as-a-kid, or when I outright dispute a factual claim they are making, such as the Jews being slaves in Egypt, I recieve undue amounts of protest, saying that I am insulting people by making these jokes and disputing these facts. This is absolutely ridiculous. What I am insulting is the belief, not the people, if they choose to take offense and see themselves as the embodiment of their religion, that is their burden, not mine.

If ONE DUDE getting upset with you is "undue amounts of protest", I suggest a debate forum on the internet is perhaps not a profitable use of your time.

Otherwise, it's just like anything else that you know is shit-stirring-- some people will mind and not say anything, some people won't mind, and some people will think you're being a jerk and will tell you so. If you can live with that, say whatever you please. (And yes, sometimes shit needs to be stirred, but it's almost never going to make you popular. Live with that or have another reason for doing it, or don't do it.)

I am aware of that, I was mostly just curious of other people's opinions on the matter, hence the poll. I've been told numerous times that what I do would make me 'unpopular' with religious people, and I don't mind that, but I'm curious about how more secular people see it.

Picked option 2, though my opinion is more between 2 and 3 really. (didn't read the thread btw. Not enough time. Just replying to the poll question.)

Offending people is not against the law. It's not some taboo thing that you shouldn't do either. Heck, there is always someone that's offended by any opinion I've noticed. In a religious debate/argument I don't start out rude though. I keep it polite and give them my viewpoint and use logic. I do tend to get a bit more rude if the other person is just being an idiot about it, on an 'I call them as I see them' basis though. So I would call idiots idiots, hypocrites hypocrites, etc. Sometimes it's also fun to point out all the fallacies that mostly theists like to use. (though others use them too, of course.)

As for me, I am making this thread as, at least partially, a reuslt from arguing with religious people. It seems to me that whenever I either make a joke about religion such as in the second post of this thread: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.398228-Stupid-things-you-believed-as-a-kid, or when I outright dispute a factual claim they are making, such as the Jews being slaves in Egypt, I recieve undue amounts of protest, saying that I am insulting people by making these jokes and disputing these facts. This is absolutely ridiculous. What I am insulting is the belief, not the people, if they choose to take offense and see themselves as the embodiment of their religion, that is their burden, not mine.

If ONE DUDE getting upset with you is "undue amounts of protest", I suggest a debate forum on the internet is perhaps not a profitable use of your time.

Did I say it was one person? Did I say I was upset?

I looked at the thread you cited as an example of "undue amounts of protest", and it was one guy who got upset with you, several people agreeing with you, one person pointing out fairly mildly that it didn't take long for someone to pull in sectarian concerns, and most of the people ignoring it and posting less contentious things. The fact that you made this post and talked about how you're tired of "walking on eggshells" implied, to me, that it upset you. The fact remains, either that thread was a poor example of the reception you're saying you get, or you're blowing it way out of proportion.

I am aware of that, I was mostly just curious of other people's opinions on the matter, hence the poll. I've been told numerous times that what I do would make me 'unpopular' with religious people, and I don't mind that, but I'm curious about how more secular people see it.

You don't need a poll to tell you that it's shit-disturbing, and if you've had "numerous" people tell you that, I suspect it's something you already know. And your poll was worded in a really wanky way, and I suspect you know *that*, too. Telling people their beliefs are "insane" is a lot more than "not tiptoeing", to me it comes off less offensive than rather immature.

No, "I'm insulting the belief, not the people" doesn't wash, either. If you're telling people their beliefs are full of crazy and bullshit, the implication that they must be either nuts or stupid to fall for it is pretty damn obvious. If you're going to do that, at least have the balls to own what you're saying. If I say "Republicans' policy positions are harmful, irresponsible, and deranged", yes, I'm damn well criticizing the people who hold those positions. I'm saying that I find them irresponsible, and either severely failing to understand the real cost of their positions or lacking empathy badly enough to know and not care. They might be otherwise wonderful people; I know several Republicans who I think are fine people, willing to give the shirts off their back to friends in need. It still doesn't make what they're promoting at the ballot box acceptable to me. That's shit-disturbing too, and I'm willing to accept the social fallout from that because I think the harm they're doing necessitates it. If you feel that religion-- ALL religion-- is that level of harmful, then knock yourself out. But don't play the sophist with what you're doing.

(Personally? I think that view is, well, uninformed. Every time I've gotten into a conversation with someone who thinks as you do about religion, I get told that my religion doesn't count as a religion because it's too new or too underpopulated to matter, so who cares if it doesn't hold up to their criticism? These people are talking about "religion" and meaning "Christianity"; or possibly "Abrahamism" or "a very specific kind of literalist Christianity", but won't simply say so. Religion is a normal function of a healthy human brain, and IMO pluralism is a much more sociologically and psychologically sensible societal model to espouse than pure secularism. So when people say that the world would be so much better if we could just get rid of religion and replace it with logic and science, I look at my own life and that of the people I know, and think they're completely cracked. Yes, I'd be so much more happier if I were miserable, it makes so much sense!)

If ONE DUDE getting upset with you is "undue amounts of protest", I suggest a debate forum on the internet is perhaps not a profitable use of your time.

Did I say it was one person? Did I say I was upset?

I looked at the thread you cited as an example of "undue amounts of protest", and it was one guy who got upset with you, several people agreeing with you, one person pointing out fairly mildly that it didn't take long for someone to pull in sectarian concerns, and most of the people ignoring it and posting less contentious things. The fact that you made this post and talked about how you're tired of "walking on eggshells" implied, to me, that it upset you. The fact remains, either that thread was a poor example of the reception you're saying you get, or you're blowing it way out of proportion.

That was just the most recent one that I could actually link to, the others involve real life and various other sites.

I am aware of that, I was mostly just curious of other people's opinions on the matter, hence the poll. I've been told numerous times that what I do would make me 'unpopular' with religious people, and I don't mind that, but I'm curious about how more secular people see it.

You don't need a poll to tell you that it's shit-disturbing, and if you've had "numerous" people tell you that, I suspect it's something you already know. And your poll was worded in a really wanky way, and I suspect you know *that*, too. Telling people their beliefs are "insane" is a lot more than "not tiptoeing", to me it comes off less offensive than rather immature.

I didn't ask anything to do with how offensive religious people see it in the poll, I am not sure what you're talking about. As for my poll, I was merely trying to include as many options as I could think of, one of my friends would almost certainly pick the 'insane' option. You know you have to include beliefs other than your own in polls right?

No, "I'm insulting the belief, not the people" doesn't wash, either. If you're telling people their beliefs are full of crazy and bullshit, the implication that they must be either nuts or stupid to fall for it is pretty damn obvious. If you're going to do that, at least have the balls to own what you're saying.

Funny, I don't rememeber ever saying that. Where exactly are you pulling this from?

If I say "Republicans' policy positions are harmful, irresponsible, and deranged", yes, I'm damn well criticizing the people who hold those positions. I'm saying that I find them irresponsible, and either severely failing to understand the real cost of their positions or lacking empathy badly enough to know and not care.

It's up to you if you wish to imply that when you call Republican policy options that. It is not what I choose to do, as I do not know what's best for everyone when it comes to politics.

They might be otherwise wonderful people; I know several Republicans who I think are fine people, willing to give the shirts off their back to friends in need. It still doesn't make what they're promoting at the ballot box acceptable to me. That's shit-disturbing too, and I'm willing to accept the social fallout from that because I think the harm they're doing necessitates it. If you feel that religion-- ALL religion-- is that level of harmful, then knock yourself out. But don't play the sophist with what you're doing.

There's such a thing as not being a dick about it, and you seem to not understand that. I pity your Republican friends.

(Personally? I think that view is, well, uninformed. Every time I've gotten into a conversation with someone who thinks as you do about religion, I get told that my religion doesn't count as a religion because it's too new or too underpopulated to matter, so who cares if it doesn't hold up to their criticism? These people are talking about "religion" and meaning "Christianity"; or possibly "Abrahamism" or "a very specific kind of literalist Christianity", but won't simply say so. Religion is a normal function of a healthy human brain, and IMO pluralism is a much more sociologically and psychologically sensible societal model to espouse than pure secularism. So when people say that the world would be so much better if we could just get rid of religion and replace it with logic and science, I look at my own life and that of the people I know, and think they're completely cracked. Yes, I'd be so much more happier if I were miserable, it makes so much sense!)

Something being a normal function of a healthy human brain does not make it inherently good. Crowd mentality is also a function of a healthy human brain. I also fail to see the link between secularism and being miserable. All I want is for people to enjoy their lives without doing pointless, often dangerous rituals, or believing in things which potentially harm them.

Open up your mind too much and your brain will fall out.

As for you, I know who you are, I've probably had arguments with you before, and I know that there is no point arguing with you, you cannot be swayed. In short, unless you bring up a reasonable point in your next post I shall not reply.

Right...how exactly is being able to listen to people's veiwpoints and inform them on your own without outright insulting them ignorance. Sounds more like the mark of an enlightened person to me.

Well considering all you did was pretty much say "This makes you look like a fanatic!" instead of actually addressing what was said and not even demonstrating much of a parallel, the last thing I'd do was call you enlightened. I didn't see much evidence of you listening to Bash's view point, and you informing him of your own wasn't very educational. It seemed on the level of him informing you that he found it ignorant as far as being informative went.

The parallel here is pretty simple.

When it comes to rational religious people, their view of other religions is live and let live. Bluff actively wants their idiologies to die out. I'd say his line of thought is far more dangerous than any of the people he claims to be endangering society or holding us back.

Wanting an ideology to die out is not dangerous in and of itself, that's really very obvious. It depends on the methods and anyone who has bothered to read can see that he's not calling for genocide or anything.

I view religion in the same light as I view culture. I treat it with more respect than your average ideology because I know how important it is to some people. I realize that what I may find odd, stupid or weird is normal to someone else and I should frankly shut the fuck up about it.Things that actually hurt people though. I see no need to be respectful towards that. That goes as much for the westboro baptist church as it does for female circumcision in Africa.

One must look at the intent of what is said. Is it sent purposefully to be offensive or is it stating an opinion or fact.

Saying only idiots believe in religion doesn't really serve a purpose, no more than calling someone an idiot. However pointing out that someones religion should not dictate how I live my life is not offensive unless someone chooses to take it that way.

There is nothing wrong with either side of any argument making logical points, but unfortunetly when there is no compromise or agreeing to disagree then it becomes a fight with nothing meaningful gained.

I personally don't bother trying to convince someone of a point when I know they believe their point to the exclusion of any other argument, but I will not censor myself if they are around and I am making a point to someone else.

Bashfluff:When Hitchens said that the number one source of hatred in the world is religion, organized religion, I agree. It should be treated with ridicule and hatred whenever it's found. It needs to die if we are to move forward as a society.

There are three types of societal movements- the sudden leap, the slow creep, and the wave. People seem to think modern atheism is one of the first two, that we are moving uniformly towards the end of religion, but the way I see it, you're riding high on a wave that is going to fall eventually, it has risen and fallen many times before, and soon enough you won't even be able to imagine religion going anywhere.

Bashfluff:When Hitchens said that the number one source of hatred in the world is religion, organized religion, I agree. It should be treated with ridicule and hatred whenever it's found. It needs to die if we are to move forward as a society.

There are three types of societal movements- the sudden leap, the slow creep, and the wave. People seem to think modern atheism is one of the first two, that we are moving uniformly towards the end of religion, but the way I see it, you're riding high on a wave that is going to fall eventually, it has risen and fallen many times before, and soon enough you won't even be able to imagine religion going anywhere.

You can think that if you wish and be hopeful, but atheists aren't going anywhere. You know why? Because it is a creep turned into a leap. Sometimes it slows, and sometimes it jumps. But it's not a wave, because we're not going back out there away from the public sphere. We're not going down. We're not backing away.

Bashfluff:When Hitchens said that the number one source of hatred in the world is religion, organized religion, I agree. It should be treated with ridicule and hatred whenever it's found. It needs to die if we are to move forward as a society.

There are three types of societal movements- the sudden leap, the slow creep, and the wave. People seem to think modern atheism is one of the first two, that we are moving uniformly towards the end of religion, but the way I see it, you're riding high on a wave that is going to fall eventually, it has risen and fallen many times before, and soon enough you won't even be able to imagine religion going anywhere.

You can think that if you wish and be hopeful, but atheists aren't going anywhere. You know why? Because it is a creep turned into a leap. Sometimes it slows, and sometimes it jumps. But it's not a wave, because we're not going back out there away from the public sphere. We're not going down. We're not backing away.

You know who else was sure religion was out the door?

The renaissance thinkers who turned the dark ages into an 'it's all religions fault' lie. Who believed they had finally broken free of the evils of organized religion. Well they were wrong and so are you. And so are religious people who blame it all atheist or people of another religion. Turns out people are still butchering each other in an 'era of humanism', and were back then too.

No one is saying you should 'go away'. Just that you will fade, in time, but not disapeer. See, secularism has taken off and gone down time after time, just like religion has. It's always there as long as humans are. It's ebbing and flowing tides, sort of thing.

This time isn't going to be any difference. I'd say we're still ramping up the 'secularism' thing, but eventually it will go down and religion will again begin to build it's own momentum.

You can think that if you wish and be hopeful, but atheists aren't going anywhere. You know why? Because it is a creep turned into a leap. Sometimes it slows, and sometimes it jumps. But it's not a wave, because we're not going back out there away from the public sphere. We're not going down. We're not backing away.

The measure of a movement is not the amount it is unwilling to back down, it is the amount everyone else is willing to listen. Hitchens and Dawkins were fresh once... so many people felt enlightened. Atheists got their Mecca on the internet and lived hoping to spread logic and reason to others. But we've heard all that now. The remnants of that intellectualism are fleeting at best, and more and more often we see atheists who even don't care to listen to the atheists anymore. And if that's the case, who does?

tstorm823:But we've heard all that now. The remnants of that intellectualism are fleeting at best, and more and more often we see atheists who even don't care to listen to the atheists anymore. And if that's the case, who does?

Is that really relevant? The main point of Atheism is supposed to be individualism and critical thinking, at least to a lot of people's understanding. I certainly don't agree with Atheists who believe in horoscopes or ley lines, for instance, so this is less about simplistic "teams" (gods yes/no) than it is about principles of inquiry. For me at least, it's not about "listening to the atheists", it's about letting go of unskeptical beliefs. Perhaps Atheism has lost steam as a coherent movement, but at the same time the numbers of "nones" in general and Atheists specifically keep increasing significantly. I'm sure there are a lot of unskeptical people among these new Atheists, sure, but do I think Atheism needs a coherent movement in the first place? Not really.

tstorm823:But we've heard all that now. The remnants of that intellectualism are fleeting at best, and more and more often we see atheists who even don't care to listen to the atheists anymore. And if that's the case, who does?

Is that really relevant? The main point of Atheism is supposed to be individualism and critical thinking, at least to a lot of people's understanding. I certainly don't agree with Atheists who believe in horoscopes or ley lines, for instance, so this is less about simplistic "teams" (gods yes/no) than it is about principles of inquiry. For me at least, it's not about "listening to the atheists", it's about letting go of unskeptical beliefs. Perhaps Atheism has lost steam as a coherent movement, but at the same time the numbers of "nones" in general and Atheists specifically keep increasing significantly. I'm sure there are a lot of unskeptical people among these new Atheists, sure, but do I think Atheism needs a coherent movement in the first place? Not really.

You can think that if you wish and be hopeful, but atheists aren't going anywhere. You know why? Because it is a creep turned into a leap. Sometimes it slows, and sometimes it jumps. But it's not a wave, because we're not going back out there away from the public sphere. We're not going down. We're not backing away.

The measure of a movement is not the amount it is unwilling to back down, it is the amount everyone else is willing to listen. Hitchens and Dawkins were fresh once... so many people felt enlightened. Atheists got their Mecca on the internet and lived hoping to spread logic and reason to others. But we've heard all that now. The remnants of that intellectualism are fleeting at best, and more and more often we see atheists who even don't care to listen to the atheists anymore. And if that's the case, who does?

We continue to grow, we continue to push back when religion oversteps its bounds, and we continue to rally against our common enemies.

Is that really relevant? -snip- I'm sure there are a lot of unskeptical people among these new Atheists...

I believe you've answered your own question here. If all coherent movements of atheists fall apart or lose relevance, it's quite unlikely that a lot of unskeptical people are going to continue to identify themselves as such. The vast majority of those "nones" or "atheists" seem to me to be less dependant on principles of inquiry than they are on popular culture, specifically on avoiding the current faux pas of being religious.

Even here, a sub-forum where anyone who can't think for themselves will either get hated out or bored, the subject matter is almost never about serious philosophical matters. It's once in a blue moon that the many supporters of whatever beliefs here actually take the oppurtunity to discuss important facets of their own ideologies; most of the time the focus goes straight to either something a member of another group did or some current event that they're excited to disagree about. Even if there's legitimate criticism, it's never self-critism.

Not to say I'm any less guilty of any of this. I freely admit that I'm mostly just a representative of the tradition that raised me. And I focus straight in on what I disagree with instead of what I believe. But that just makes me believe even more so that most people think the same, regardless of belief. And from that, I conclude that modern changes in faith are not based on any legitimate change in the way people analyze their beliefs, but instead is essentially a purely cosmetic change.

Is that really relevant? -snip- I'm sure there are a lot of unskeptical people among these new Atheists...

I believe you've answered your own question here. If all coherent movements of atheists fall apart or lose relevance, it's quite unlikely that a lot of unskeptical people are going to continue to identify themselves as such. The vast majority of those "nones" or "atheists" seem to me to be less dependant on principles of inquiry than they are on popular culture, specifically on avoiding the current faux pas of being religious.

Even here, a sub-forum where anyone who can't think for themselves will either get hated out or bored, the subject matter is almost never about serious philosophical matters. It's once in a blue moon that the many supporters of whatever beliefs here actually take the oppurtunity to discuss important facets of their own ideologies; most of the time the focus goes straight to either something a member of another group did or some current event that they're excited to disagree about. Even if there's legitimate criticism, it's never self-critism.

Not to say I'm any less guilty of any of this. I freely admit that I'm mostly just a representative of the tradition that raised me. And I focus straight in on what I disagree with instead of what I believe. But that just makes me believe even more so that most people think the same, regardless of belief. And from that, I conclude that modern changes in faith are not based on any legitimate change in the way people analyze their beliefs, but instead is essentially a purely cosmetic change.

Faux Pas of being religious? Like...how close to 70% of America is religious? It's a Faux Pas to admit you're NOT. Are there posers? Yes. Are there a lot of posers? No. And it's because of what leads to atheism and what's prominent in the atheist community insofar as what we value and what motivates the majority of the community. Modern "changes" in faith, even christianity, insofar as the past few hundred years even, THOSE show that people in the religion see it as something different than it was, and this isn't even counting how it was changed. People's beliefs changed in how they interpreted things and how many people interpreted them. How people analyze their beliefs is something that has been fluid for centuries, and you act like you are merely standing in the middle of one frame of a film, only able to look at certain frames by not realizing it. Things are changing. People are growing, worldwide, more secular. People in the past four freaking years, even, have stopped with their radical homophobic beliefs for the most part. Jon Stewart said it best when he compared how the Fox News Network treated gays politically, and the support of them, versus how we treat them today. And this is ONE issue, and not even a core one. But what about Noah's Ark being figurative, like Adam and Eve? Evolution being accepted by people of faith as it should? The devil in his modern form? Hell?

I would hesitate to call things stagnant in any one religion. I would hesitate further to call things stagnant in how society treats it and follows it. I've done the research.

tstorm823:Not to say I'm any less guilty of any of this. I freely admit that I'm mostly just a representative of the tradition that raised me. And I focus straight in on what I disagree with instead of what I believe. But that just makes me believe even more so that most people think the same, regardless of belief. And from that, I conclude that modern changes in faith are not based on any legitimate change in the way people analyze their beliefs, but instead is essentially a purely cosmetic change.

What constitutes a 'legitimate' change? Content matters. If an important part of a person's 'purely cosmetic' beliefs deals with process, method, and analysis, then that will have an influence. It does not completely determine behavior, of course, but it does matter.

confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof

So then, can I make fun of you and attack you if you believe in aliens or global warming? Or even do the same because you believe there isn't a god and hold that believe with zero evidence of it? Is that respectful? No.

A belief is simply something you hold to be true, it may or may not have evidence for it. I do not believe in aliens, I think there is quite a liklihood of them, but I don't believe in them because I haven't seen any, I can honestly say that I have no idea about global warming due to so many conflicting factors.

As for lack of belief in god, I believe there is no god because there is no evidence. If there were evidence, then I would believe. Some people say lack of evidence does not constitue evidence. They are wrong.

This chair I'm sitting in right now, I don't believe it is there, I know it is there, because I have evidence of it (I can see it, touch it, etc). I can obviously prove this chair is here. That is knowledge rather than belief. Again, a belief is something you hold to be true without being able to prove it is true. That is what a belief is defined as, not what you see it as.

At the end of the day though, the mature thing to do is just to respect what other people believes and not be a jerk about it, no matter how stupid what they believe is.

So then, can I make fun of you and attack you if you believe in aliens or global warming? Or even do the same because you believe there isn't a god and hold that believe with zero evidence of it? Is that respectful? No.

A belief is simply something you hold to be true, it may or may not have evidence for it. I do not believe in aliens, I think there is quite a liklihood of them, but I don't believe in them because I haven't seen any, I can honestly say that I have no idea about global warming due to so many conflicting factors.

As for lack of belief in god, I believe there is no god because there is no evidence. If there were evidence, then I would believe. Some people say lack of evidence does not constitue evidence. They are wrong.

This chair I'm sitting in right now, I don't believe it is there, I know it is there, because I have evidence of it (I can see it, touch it, etc). I can obviously prove this chair is here. That is knowledge rather than belief. Again, a belief is something you hold to be true without being able to prove it is true. That is what a belief is defined as, not what you see it as.

be·lief /biˈlēf/Noun1. An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.2. Something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction.

Google dictionary disagrees with you. I think you might be talking about faith.

At the end of the day though, the mature thing to do is just to respect what other people believes and not be a jerk about it, no matter how stupid what they believe is.

I'd generally agree. Only do to them as they do to you. If they say you're going to burn in hell, well the gloves are off. If on the other hand you are having a conversation with a stranger, or a co-worker, then yes, polite is generally the best route.